For those of us who do not know, why do YEC choose the age of Earth to be 6000 years? Why not 10,000 or 1 million, or 4.6 billion? What about the age of the universe? How old do YEC believe that the universe is?

The estimation came from Usher's chronology who came up with estimations based on biblical chronology.

I used to be pretty open about the age of the earth/uinverse being pretty old, but the more I've discussed it with evolutionists, and studied the evidence a little further, the more I've started to see that there is a very real possibility that the earth is less than 100k yrs old.

If you are a literalist, then what God say's is what you believe. If you are not, then certain opinions get added.

According to God's word, the earth is around 6,000 years old. And because I am a literalist in believing God's word, it is what I believe.

On the other end, some only believe what they see, or what they can test. Which does not require much faith. And is the reason God said this is what you need to have. But the one's who believe only what they can see, test, or theorize say that our universe is somewhere around 13.7 billion years old. Which with the big bang theory, would make the universe's upper limit of how wide it is about 27.4 billion light years.

But new data collected from a space probe that was examining the Cosmic Background Radiation, now has astronomers estimating it to be as wide as 156 billion light years.

So now as we explore more, we find things are even older and older. What if we find that the universe really has no end? What then? For I think we have gone as far as our current technology will allow us to go. But, it does not mean things are even more so than we can see now.

So if the universe has no end, it would prove more about God because it would be considered an eternity (never ending). But what would it say about the rest of what is speculated?

If you are a literalist, then what God say's is what you believe. If you are not, then certain opinions get added.According to God's word, the earth is around 6,000 years old. And because I am a literalist in believing God's word, it is what I believe.

Okay, but the point of the topic is why is it necessarily God's word that the Earth is only 6000 years old? I cannot find this number in the bible anywhere and the previous poster informed me that Usher determined the age of the Earth by chronology.

Naturally my next question concerned the details of Ushers chronology. For example, did he just count the folks mentioned in the bible and multiply that number by the avg. life expectancy of a human being? Are the ages of each person mentioned in the bible included? And if so, are we to believe that every single generation was also mentioned?

I understand the 7 day creation (the 7th day god rested right?) story, and if you take that literally then I understand why you believe it. But why couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Adam and is family live 150,000 years ago? Why only 6000?

But the one's who believe only what they can see, test, or theorize say that our universe is somewhere around 13.7 billion years old. Which with the big bang theory, would make the universe's upper limit of how wide it is about 27.4 billion light years.

But new data collected from a space probe that was examining the Cosmic Background Radiation, now has astronomers estimating it to be as wide as 156 billion light years.

The discrepency between 27.4 billion and 156 billion is covered in the link you gave at space.com.

Need a visual? Imagine the universe just a million years after it was born, Cornish suggests. A batch of light travels for a year, covering one light-year. "At that time, the universe was about 1,000 times smaller than it is today," he said. "Thus, that one light-year has now stretched to become 1,000 light-years."

Okay, but the point of the topic is why is it necessarily God's word that the Earth is only 6000 years old? I cannot find this number in the bible anywhere and the previous poster informed me that Usher determined the age of the Earth by chronology.

It is necessairily His word because it follows from the timeline available in the text. Whether it be 6,000 years or 5,000 or 9,000. It is somewhere in that time frame. Those who propose 'gaps', etc., are required to show, without doing violence to the text, where these are possible. Naturally, for those who reject the text entirely it is not necessary (and a good thing it is) to show anything beyond an opinion that rests soley on a desire that the earth be ancient because thereby they believe they can safely ignore what the text has to say with regard to their condition. Make no mistake. There is a 1:1 correlation here. Some people want to reject the Word, claiming it to be mere tribal myth or something similar, because if they can do that to their satisfaction they become self-justified.

Naturally my next question concerned the details of Ushers chronology. For example, did he just count the folks mentioned in the bible and multiply that number by the avg. life expectancy of a human being?

The good Bishop started with the geneologies as given in Genesis. Anyone can do the same thing. It will require less than an hour of your time. Simply go through the stated generations taking note of who was begat by who, and how long they lived, and you will find out all sorts of interesting things. Take Methuselah for one. Did you know he died in the year of the Flood? Most people don't. But what Usher did wasn't at all mystical. If I recall correctly (and I may not) he put the date of creation at October 4, 4004 BC. It is easily possible to dispute the Bishop based on calendar problems and for other reasons, but the general time frame is quite acceptable if God is to be taken as the very definition of Truth.

It is necessairily His word because it follows from the timeline available in the text. Whether it be 6,000 years or 5,000 or 9,000. It is somewhere in that time frame. Those who propose 'gaps', etc., are required to show, without doing violence to the text, where these are possible.

So, you accept that the bible is a literal record of every generation that existed up until Jesus' time?

No, I don't, but not every generation is mentioned. That is why I said it is possible to bicker with the Bishop over the exact date.

By the way, there is no need to read into my speech things that are not there. If you want to know what I think, just ask direct questions instead of drawing unwarranted assumptions that will only lead you to erronious conclusions.

By the way, there is no need to read into my speech things that are not there. If you want to know what I think, just ask direct questions instead of drawing unwarranted assumptions that will only lead you to erronious conclusions.

Sorry, I guess I didn't see my assumptions as unwarranted. I thought they followed logically from the method that Usher employed to determine his "ball park number" for the age of the Earth. You accept that Usher's number is in the right neighborhood so naturally I assumed that you accepted his method as a good one, and in order for it to be so, almost one person from every generation observed would have to be included. However, if there was no reason to list almost one person from every generation then suggesting large gaps of time between folks mentioned in the good book is not outlandish nor does it do violence to the gospels.

By the way if you noticed how my statement was worded:

So, you accept that the bible is a literal record of every generation that existed up until Jesus' time?

It was framed in the form of a question. I am not sure how one can phrase it more directly. I even used a question mark. So I didn't conclude anything because I am still asking questions so that I won't make unwarranted assumptions about you. I am sorry if this came off as something else but after rereading my posts I am not quite sure how you came to your conclusions that I was drawing unwarranted assumptions and I think it is you that has the problem, not me. Your reply was condesending and "bully" -ish. I thought our talks were to be civil.

However, if there was no reason to list almost one person from every generation then suggesting large gaps of time between folks mentioned in the good book is not outlandish nor does it do violence to the gospels.

The 'gaps' I was referring to are those proposed by some people that extend to millions, or even billions of years, not just a generation here or there.

By the way if you noticed how my statement was worded:It was framed in the form of a question.

Putting a question mark after an assumption does not make it a direct question. Saying "So, you" instead of "Do you" makes all the difference.

...and I think it is you that has the problem, not me. Your reply was condesending and "bully" -ish. I thought our talks were to be civil.

...and I think it is you that has the problem, not me. Your reply was condesending and "bully" -ish. I thought our talks were to be civil.

Get a grip, dude. Deacon is always civil - also, he is always direct. Pointing out someone is mad or bullyish is simply trolling. Emotions do not translate over the net.Yehren is an expert at trying to get off subject by accusing someone of being mad or riled. It is childish.

Putting a question mark after an assumption does not make it a direct question. Saying "So, you" instead of "Do you" makes all the difference.

Where I come from (Earth) putting a question mark after a statement is asking a question. For example, If I say to my girlfriend "so, your about to go to your mother's?" She would answer yes, clearly understanding that it was a question. Now with out the word "so" and the "?" it would be a statement. This is a matter of you seeing something that wasn't intentionally implied. I did not wish to imply that this was your view, I put it in the form of a question so that you could confirm or deny it as being your general view.

So I asked: "So, you accept that the bible is a literal record of every generation that existed up until Jesus' time?"

You obviously don't, but you added:

By the way, there is no need to read into my speech things that are not there. If you want to know what I think, just ask direct questions instead of drawing unwarranted assumptions that will only lead you to erronious conclusions.

I made an assumption off of what you had written that wasn't a stretch, I generalized what I thought you might be getting at and asked you if I was right about your view. That is how I see it. You saw something else. Sorry, yet again. But I saw no need for your accusations above that I drew unwarranted assumptions. I might have drawn incorrect assumptions but I made sure that I asked you if my assumptions were right before proceeding. You told me they were wrong, so I can probe further until I get what you believe about the matter correct.

Geezer wrote:

Get a grip, dude. Deacon is always civil - also, he is always direct. Pointing out someone is mad or bullyish is simply trolling.

That is not trolling, I was engaged in a fruitful discussion, asked a question, and was chastised for it instead of a simple, your wrong. Trolling would be if I came on the board, made fun of everyone, and did not care about the opinions of my opponents, which I obviously do.

If the guestimators were correct when saying the Earth was billions of years old.How large do you think the sun would have been and how hot would the Earth had been and how hot can life exist at??

Related to your question, does it really matter what the age estimate is?

Thousands of years or billions of years, you still have to assume that suitable conditions existed throughout the history of life, no matter how long the history of life is, otherwise there would be great big intervals of no fossils in the geologic record. Although there are some pretty big losses of diversity at the end of the Permian and the end of the Cretaceous, some critters made it past these events.

The estimation came from Usher's chronology who came up with estimations based on biblical chronology.

I used to be pretty open about the age of the earth/uinverse being pretty old, but the more I've discussed it with evolutionists, and studied the evidence a little further, the more I've started to see that there is a very real possibility that the earth is less than 100k yrs old.

Terry

Let's pretend that I am from another culture who has never heard of the Old Testament. Without mentioning the Old Testament, what evidence or technique would you show me to evidence a 6,000-10,000 year old earth? What dating techniques give a consistently young date? Without reference to magic, how did the light from those distant stars get to Earth in such a short time period?